Thanks for pointing that out Phil. Normally I just email to my clients
and not generally to mailing lists. I have since adjusted the DMARC
record to be more relaxed to accommodate my participation in this
community.
On 2/1/2017 1:20 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2017-01-31 at 22:09 -0600, Dan Liles wrote:
>> I'm having a problem with this list - for some reason I'm not seeing replies
>> to my answers in my inbox ( I have to look at the archive on the website ).
>
> You had replies from: James Lovejoy <jlovejoy@???>
>
> Gmail is rejecting those replies as they come through the @exim.org
> servers, because James has published a DMARC policy telling them to do
> so.
>
> % dig +short -t txt _dmarc.lovejoytech.com
> "v=DMARC1\;p=reject\;rua=mailto:admin@lovejoytech.com\;ruf=mailto:admin@lovejoytech.com\;adkim=s\;aspf=s"
>
> A strict DMARC policy is appropriate for transactional emails from
> systems which only ever mail to people, it's not appropriate for domains
> with humans who send emails to mailing-lists.
>
> Coincidentally, I've been considering talking with the other list admins
> for exim.org [Bcc'd] about whether we should accept the current trend to
> have mailing-lists rewrite messages so that they appear to come "from"
> the list, instead of from the original poster, for DMARC users. This is
> horrible for various reasons, but with large mail providers pushing
> DMARC, we now have a choice:
>
> 1. Rewrite mails a lot, breaking DKIM, for messages through @exim.org
> 2. Block all messages from domains which publish DMARC policies.
>
> Option 2 is the quick fix, but James has been helpful and I don't want
> to block his mail. Yet, if he sends enough mail to exim-users, other
> subscribers risk being automatically unsubscribed by mailman when
> Gmail/Yahoo/etc reject enough of his mail and they're deemed to be
> "bouncing addresses".
>
> Option 1 basically means that we're committing to implementing DKIM
> signing on exim.org itself, not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> I wrote the mailman patch for option 2 a few years back, which some
> other lists deployed. Since that time, various "not utterly horrible"
> solutions for Option 1 have become available.
>
> _Because_ new subscribers to exim-users are moderated by default, I'm
> not slapping Option 2 in place immediately as a stop-gap; any current
> subscribers could thus abuse the setup and cause mass unsubscriptions.
> If anyone does that, we'll have to clean up afterwards and issue formal
> complaints. I _think_ we'll be okay for the moment.
>
> -Phil
>
